I’ve collected a lot of feed back from my previous post about my upcoming research into Cape Wind, the proposed wind farm out in Nantucket sound. It’s a very interesting instance of public communication (an instance, I guess you could call it, although the proposal has been present for almost eight years) that is, for the most part, unprecedented in American environmental rhetoric.  I am a student of ‘rhetorical critique’ here in Ithaca; so the instance is very appealing to me as a nerd. What that means is that I examine artifacts of communication with hopes of determining more than simply who is correct. It’s my job to dissect items of discourse (for instance, debate about a wind farm), and evaluate a number of things:

• how does the language represent certain cultural trends in the society that it exists within?
• how does the language in fact reinforce certain trends, or create them all together (social change)?
• what kind of function does the language perform as a chunk of argument … and is it effective?
• within the discourse, which symbols/images connote specific meaning to the audience beyond it’s literal idea (so the color green is literally green, but means more than that doesn’t it?)?
• does the discourse reflect a careful power structure of who can say what (scientists?)?

In short, a critique aims to answer some of these questions. I’ve picked Cape Wind as general artifact of communication for my thesis since these questions have answers, yet no one has really stopped to determine them.  

People have been arguing over Cape Wind since 2001. The debate subsided greatly a few years ago as the Army Corp slowly produced it’s DEIS (Environmental Impact Survey). However, now that the document has been released (back in January, I think), the discourse has been enlivened.

So. What makes this debate significant from other political issues surrounding the environment? I tell you … it’s the nature of the arguments and the evidence.

In the past, America has routinely seen communicative head-butts where the opposite sides fall under these categories: those for the environment, those for industry. Naturally, the kinds of things these people say are in serious contrast. For example, one side will tackle an issue using scientific evidence, while the opposing one relies on economics to prove it’s affirmative. 

However, on Cape Cod, we see two major groups both arguing in favor of the environment!! How does that work? Both the opposition and support of the developer are making claims with the same kinds of arugment. This, in turn, makes the discourse quite interesting. It’s the environment versus the environment; science versus science. 

Groups on both sides need to craft evidence in the best way to persuade the audience (others), but at the same time distinguish themselves from the opposition. When you think about it, it’s seriously difficult to deny an opponents argument when your claims are almost exactly alike. That’s why sometimes, I’ll hear a radio commericial, and I can’t tell if it’s the “No Wind Farms” people, or the “Go Wind Farms” people until the end!

Both sides have recently adopted a certain approach to environmental discourse where the audience has to act as technical communicators. The power of meaning has shifted out of the hands of scientists and into non-experts, who in turn aim to make the audience technically understanding of the evidence. It’s also called risk communication.

This is what I researched, it makes only a little sense to me too.  

All together, this is why I am interested in windy discourse. I think I’ll keep reporting on my findings here from time to time. Thank you for those of you who commented on my last post; I will most definitely get in contact with you after my preliminary research, and when I get down to the gritty critique in a couple months.